The general argument seems to be that men shouldn’t marry women who are anything less than head-over-heels for them. At the same time, men also want to marry women they are head-over-heels about. Complicating matters further, some people – include myself – understand that most women may never find a man they are “head-over-heels” about. Yet many women, especially women in conservative Christian circles, deeply desire marriage.

This same point is made by many men of the manosphere, generally making the assertion that because of hypergamy women are naturally only capable of being attracted to and truly falling for 10-30% of men. This is simply not true (which I will show in a moment), but even if it were true it isn’t a valid argument for women marrying a man they aren’t attracted to.

Those who argue for marriage when the couple isn’t suited are essentially saying sure, when sailing out into open water you really should have something like this:

But that isn’t easy and may not be available to everyone, so go ahead and use one of these and hope for the best:

It doesn’t matter how much they want to make the journey. The fact is they aren’t equipped. No amount of but I want!, I want! temper tantrums will change this fundamental fact. For those who still struggle with this, remember that this isn’t just about the couple. There are likely to be children involved as well. Both men and women have a moral obligation to do everything in their power to give their future kids the best shot possible of growing up in an in tact, functional home.

But as I said, the premise itself isn’t correct. Hypergamy doesn’t mean that women can naturally only fall in love with or be attracted to the highest status men. As Hawaiian Libertarian explains in his recent post Defining Hypergamy:

Hypergamy simply means women’s base sexual nature is attracted to a higher status in relation to herself. In other words, if she does not “look up” to a man in some way, she will not be attracted to that man. The higher status can be on one or more characteristics…which is why the unemployed musician can often date a woman who has job and disposable income. She may make more money…but she “looks up” to his musical talents, and he may be physically good looking to boot, despite not having a job, money or a car and so therefore her hypergamous attraction instincts are satisfied in mating with him, despite her higher socio-economic status.

It isn’t an absolute. While it is true that women generally do find the highest status men the most attractive, it doesn’t mean they can’t find men of their basic “marriage market value” attractive. I’m not arguing that those women who tell us they can’t fall in love with or be attracted to men in their own league aren’t telling the truth; I’m saying this isn’t the natural state of things. These women have a serious problem, and we shouldn’t deny it or try to paper over it by pretending it is ok to find a guy they aren’t repulsed by and marry him.

The problem these women have is very similar to that of a man who has become addicted to pornography and can no longer share normal and healthy intimacy with real women. Something very important is broken. It needs to be fixed before moving forward if marriage is the goal. Anyone telling them otherwise is only enabling them. While this may be meant as kindness, it is in fact cruelty.

When addressing how men should respond to hypergamy, the obvious answer is to have them learn game to improve their attractiveness. This will allow them to attract a better woman, and to cause her to fall more deeply in love with him. This is the right advice for the right audience. But the message to women should be something different. If they are close to being fulfilled but just need some fine tuning, they can make things better by not comparing men in the wrong venues, practice self control, and encourage their mate to show more leadership by their own actions. But these are all about fine tuning for better results; if a woman finds herself unable to experience normal and healthy feelings of intimacy, she very likely needs to look much deeper.

So the solution is both obvious and extremely unpleasant. Women whose ability to be attracted to normal men is malfunctioning can fix this by deflating their own egos. Some may look at this and decide they prefer to continue waiting or outright decide to remain unmarried. These are valid options. Some may be close enough to attracting the kind of man they are attracted to and decide to improve their own attractiveness and achieve their goal. This is also a valid option. A few will recognize the seriousness of their problem and decide to tackle it head on. But far too many will persist in a fantasy world where marrying without love and attraction is “good enough”. All I ask is that you not enable them in this destructive path. Marriage is too important to play make believe with.

150 Responses to Are the vast majority of women truly incapable of experiencing reciprocal love and attraction?

It seems these women have constructed a bizarre version of status that excludes most men. For men to be “high status” to them they have to have brains, sexual prowess, money, brash dominant demeanor, and looks. I see men that ARE high status get passed up because they just don’t have the whole package. But perhaps women are just too conditioned to desire this from a very young age, which is reinforced by the social structures of most schools. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I had a homeschooled religious upbringing and I never had this issue.

Honestly, I think the problem is that in the ancestral environment, almost every woman would have been with an alpha….in a polygamous situation. Our brains haven’t changed that much. They still direct women to look for alphas, and they direct men to look for many women. Hard to deal with in a culture that promotes monogamy.

Women tend to be much more externally driven than men. Until society as a whole changes and abandons the “tough girl, you go grrl, you don’t need a man” coupled with the recurring and enduring them of the girl getting the prince/vampire/alpha, this problem is not going to get fixed and is only going to get worse.

Society used to elevate the status of men because of female hypergamy which is part of the “oppressive patriarchy”

The division of labor, man’s world, woman’s world did this.

If every man gets raised up a point or two in status, then all the women are relatively happy if they marry.

Make the men equals and they will never be happy.

However, I think the vast majority of women have “made do” with the man they got just as the majority of men have “made do” because the smoking hot woman was taken.

Contrary to men who were selected for selflessness, women were selected for selfishness. The woman who tried to get as much as she could (even at the expense of others) was more likely to survive and reproduce. Men who had to work together to protect and provide for the tribe had every incentive to be loyal. There was no loyalty among women because each woman was competing for male resources. You can see this even today. Look at how well all-male groups work together and then observe how the women sabotage and backstab each other in a mixed group. Taking food from the mouths of the children in the next hut was in her interest. In everything she could be utterly mercenary and coldly opportunistic and it would be a reproductive advantage. These trends have been selected for over the history of our entire species.

You see, unlike men, women are incapable of selfless love. The one exception is their children in some cases, though sacrifice for children is rarer nowadays. Good motherhood is actually more socialized than it is natural. If you give women the option, they’ll get convenience abortions and spend child support money on a new handbag while their children go hungry. This too has an evolutionary basis. Women who committed infanticide in lean times were more likely to survive and reproduce in better ones. So, you see women are almost infinitely selfish and only love on a conditional basis, because Mother Nature has rewarded these characteristics.

Asking American women to deflate their egos is like asking a cocaine user to stop. In both cases the most likely response will be an incredulous stare, followed by anger or rage. Because in both cases, the short term benefits are so intense, and the long term looks very far away. The American woman is raised to be an entitled princess, and she’s taught from kindergarten how much better she is than stinky boys. The message gets reinforced in high school, when their SMV begins to really take off, further reinforced when colleges offer all sorts of goodies to her and her gal pals (but not to sexist oppressors) even further reinforced in college thanks to “women’s studies” courses, sororities, and so forth.

Asking a 25 year old women, who has been showered with praise, affirmation, and special privileges all of her life just because of what’s between her legs is simply going against her entire world view up to that moment. I just do not see how that is supposed to work.

Thanks for the linkage, D.
Part of the problem is the way in which our society has been artificially divided by “class” and everyone follows this script that they must date and marry only a select age group of peers…but in the case of Haley and Hana, they are ladies who identify with a religious community, their pool of acceptable marriageable men is much smaller to begin with. I would say for ladies in their situation, if they cannot find acceptable mates that they are head over heels with to marry in their own communities, they need to find a change of venue.

Move. Find a new job. Join an activity group. Just get out of their current existence for which they are not happy with their mate selection and are thinking of ‘settling.’

“Honestly, I think the problem is that in the ancestral environment, almost every woman would have been with an alpha….in a polygamous situation. Our brains haven’t changed that much. They still direct women to look for alphas, and they direct men to look for many women. Hard to deal with in a culture that promotes monogamy.”

Look at some pictures of hunter-gatherer men who have a wife or wives. Now compare them to the modern “alpha.” I just don’t think the comparison holds or that humans are that strongly polygamous- we have little in common socially or morphologically with truly polygamous great apes like gorillas. If you read ethnographies, it’s clear only the truly incompetent were unable to find wives.

Men used to have a certain amount of high status, relative to the women they were with, just by virtue of being men///they actually had legal authority over their wives until when? circa 1900? Now this “position power” is eliminated, so status must be based on something else than just being male. And by definition, it is not possible for all or the majority of men to be high-status. You can imagine a magical drug that would make all women beautiful, but no such thing is possible for status.

Dalrock, you’ve written another stemwinder that brilliantly deconstructs Haley’s and Hana’s contentions (and smashed their hamster wheels). This is why this blog is one of my regular stops.

Everyone, scroll back up and READ THIS AGAIN. Read it carefully.

“If a woman is unable to experience love and attraction within her own “league”, then the most likely problem is she is greatly overestimating her own attractiveness. It isn’t that most men aren’t good enough, it is that she sees herself as above the vast majority of men. As Roissy has said, many women have too much self esteem*, and the amount of game a woman needs depends on the degree to which she overvalues herself, and this changes based on her life experience*. This last bit is key. Women are naturally learning to stop overvaluing themselves as they grow older. As they do this, it reduces the amount of alpha/game that they need to feel attraction. The problem is, by the time this typically happens the woman is already past her prime marriage and fertility years.”

And subsumed in this is women riding the carousel during their peak fertility years, utterly wasting them in the process. This has the effect of causing a woman to overinflate beyond all proportion her view of her own sexual market value. She dates and sleeps with all those alpha men, causing her to think she’s hotter than she really is. in the current SMP, we have 5s and 6s sleeping with male 8s and 9s. She thinks if she gets to sleep with some of these men, she should ALWAYS have them and can’t understand why she can’t get them to commit. And there is no way she’ll stoop to dating a male 5 or 6 because she can “do better”.

But this ruins her marriage market value. Ratcheting up that partner count makes her less and less attractive and desirable as marriage material. And when she does marry, she can’t pair-bond to her husband (or at least it is much, much more difficult) because she’s already pair bonded with other men before him. Every man she sleeps with before marriage reduces her ability to bond to her husband because she has too many sexual frames of reference. IOW, she’s allowed too many men to get too intimate with her. She subconsciously compares her LTR or husband to her past lovers. She mulls over in her mind how he measures up, is he better or worse, is his body better or worse, is this more or less enjoyable, is he kinder, nicer, more brash, less caring, etc.

Another problem for Christian women is that they are constantly told not to “settle” and to “wait for the perfect man”. Christian women are also told how special they are and how they are not like other girls because of their faith. They need to be told that despite their faith, they still have human nature; there are basic ways in which women and men act and relate to each other; and their faith does not inoculate them from it. And they need to get realistic. Fast.

Dalrock and others have posted on this. if you have time, Dalrock, links please.

Honestly, I think the problem is that in the ancestral environment, almost every woman would have been with an alpha….in a polygamous situation. Our brains haven’t changed that much. They still direct women to look for alphas, and they direct men to look for many women. Hard to deal with in a culture that promotes monogamy.

Doesn’t seem terribly likely, given how dimorphism among humans is substantially less than among other primates. Perhaps in a pre-human species, yes. But H-G tribes were likely not polygynous but rough equality male kin-bonded tribes with pair bonds (and cheating, of course) due to the much greater child-raising needs relative to other primates. The instinct women have to seek higher value genes is natural, but if our species was generally polygynous like, say, gorillas are, men would be a LOT bigger than women than they are (as is the case with gorilla males and females).

I think Julie is right to a large degree. It’s probably a bit overstated by the manosphere, but natural hypergamy is there. But, like most human traits, it probably exists on a bell curve. On the left side, would be the rare woman who easily gets a lady boner for men of her own perceived sex rank, and maybe even a little below. In the middle are the vast of bulk of women who can only get a mild lady boner for men whose perceived sex rank is equal to their own (but never below), but whose lady boners go up dramatically as the guy’s perceived SMV rank gets 2 or 3 points higher. On the right of the curve are the poor Haleys of the world who can only get a lady boner at all for men of a much higher SMV. So, she puts up posts mocking the pictures of men who probably have SMV ranks that are higher than hers. The Christian women in that category seem to usually end up being spinsters who wonder why they never found “the One”. Occasionally they just get lucky for whatever reason, and some guy with a higher rank takes a shine to them for some reason, which only fuels the hamsters of the others. The non Christians often end up being termagent man hating feminists, even if hetero, who find the vast majority of men repulsive.

I say “perceived” sex rank, because the more primitive areas of the brain tend to govern this, and it’s not always rational. Attraction is not generally a choice. “Game” seems to be all about altering the rank that women’s hindbrains irrationally ascribe to you by adopting behaviors that, back on the savannah, must have been proxy indicators of higher rank.

Dalrock’s posts on this appear to be an attempt (perhaps not consciously) to align these facts to a religious outlook. It would not be right for a loving God to have these women born with instincts that are likely to leave them completely miserable and unfulfilled in the monogamous society that this same loving God has dictated. So, he ascribes it to their own failings and sins – hubris, pride, an overflated sense of ego that they have developed, perhaps exacerbated by modern society (Sex in the City fantasies, etc.). While some of these external factors probably exacerbate the issue, this doesn’t really address the fact that a lot of women are acutely aware of their own relative sex rank but are just very unenthusiastic (or even repulsed) by the thought of sex with men of their own rank, whereas men like that exceedingly rare. These are the women who were probably described as frigid or having no libido back in the day when they only got to have sex with their husbands, when in reality they probably would have gone wild with Elvis (or whatever equivalent there was). Evolution seems to have cursed them with this. I think the question is whether they can minimize this and learn to be attracted to men of their own rank – this will be tough because, as I said, attraction is not a choice. But I suspect they could engage in some thought exercises where their frontal lobes trick their hindbrains to some degree.

Another problem for Christian women is that they are constantly told not to “settle” and to “wait for the perfect man”. Christian women are also told how special they are and how they are not like other girls because of their faith. They need to be told that despite their faith, they still have human nature; there are basic ways in which women and men act and relate to each other; and their faith does not inoculate them from it. And they need to get realistic. Fast.

Thing is, I’m pretty certain Haley has not ridden the carousel, and I do think she is trying to take a realistic approach. I honestly don’t know how realistic it is for someone to change their attraction, other than by attrition: I agree that as women age, they adjust because they also adjust their own self-estimation, a process which seems to begin around 30 for many women, but much later for the women who age better than most.

The problem these women have is very similar to that of a man who has become addicted to pornography and can no longer share normal and healthy intimacy with real women. Something very important is broken.

This, in a nutshell. Unrealistic expectations are killing many women’s chance at happily ever after. Not to mention setting up a life of chaos for children who are born into marriages doomed to fail. And it’s sad, really.

Brendan: “Thing is, I’m pretty certain Haley has not ridden the carousel, and I do think she is trying to take a realistic approach. I honestly don’t know how realistic it is for someone to change their attraction, other than by attrition: I agree that as women age, they adjust because they also adjust their own self-estimation, a process which seems to begin around 30 for many women, but much later for the women who age better than most.”

I look forward to Brendan’s comments because they simply get right to the issue.

Agreed that fewer Chrstian women are or were carousel riders. IMy point is that Christian women have the same nature as nonChristians. Someone at Haley’s said this or something like it: Christianity does not rewrite the biological code. It just puts a layer of self-restraint over that code.

I don’t think one can change what they find attractive. I did not get absolutely everything I looked for in my wife. I got most of it, though, and learned to live without what I didn’t get. Dalrock had a post up a while ago about a late 20s or early 30s woman looking for a husband. One of Dalrock’s bits of advice was to take a chainsaw to the 463 bullet checklist. She was essentially told to get realistic about what she could expect and what kind of men she would be able to marry. Excellent advice, I think.

Another factor is Artificial Birth Control. Usage messes with a woman’s pheromone receptivity. Women on the Pill are attracted to biologically similar men rather than biological complementary men. So if while on the pill, a woman marries a man, who is a friend, whom she is not repulsed by, then there is a good chance that in marriage, after she stops taking the Pill, she will be repulsed by the same man since her pheromone receptivity will change.

She will become dissatisfied with him and will not know why. She will eschew sex (because sex with him will disgust her) and become irritable and be much more susceptible to “being true to herself” and making his life miserable, since she is miserable. Thus even many Christian women instigate an EPL divorce.

While some high status men are passed up, they aren’t passed up for too long (if they know Game, and continue to ‘get their face out there’ for women to see, be it day/night/online Game).

I generally hear more complaints from women of “needing to find a good man’ because the good men have (a) used Game to find a woman theyre happy with, or (b) another woman snatched up said good man, even if he doesn’t meet all of her criteria.

Yes, I agree, lack of realism is the core problem, detinennui32. Checklists need trimming, more of a focus on what you really need and so on is critical. And it’s true that Christians are still subject to the same rules of attraction as everyone else. It’s just a very big challenge for quite a few women, I think, given the social messaging that is constantly taking place and which molds expectations.

“So if while on the pill, a woman marries a man, who is a friend, whom she is not repulsed by, then there is a good chance that in marriage, after she stops taking the Pill, she will be repulsed by the same man since her pheromone receptivity will change.”

First, I don’t think Dalrock’s (or Haley’s) blog is speaking to women who were on the pill and having sex with friends before marriage. That certainly doesn’t describe Haley.

Also, I’m aware of these “studies”, but I suspect the effect has been greatly exaggerated. It may be real to some degree, but I think if a woman is very much attracted to a guy while on the pill, she will continue to be very much attracted to him when she goes off. The situation you describe may exist more. In other words, she may find herself “tolerant” of the beta while on the pill while very unattracted to him after she goes off (since she has a hunger for alpha at that point).

I think another factor that I didn’t’ see mentioned is how pleasant independence is. While in the long run it may be very unpleasant to find yourself 40 and unmarried in the short-run it is very unpleasant for many women to give up independence.

When I go to friends houses who are single I can’t help but feel a momentary twinge of jealousy. They seem to have so much freedom to do as they please. Their homes are palaces of feminine beauty with as much lace and flowers as they want. Their closets are full of amazing shoes and dresses that I couldn’t afford in my wildest dreams…and even if I could I would feel guilty because I have kids to put in college. They go where they want when they want.

I don’t think it is that drastically different than the reason single men avoid settling down…the independence is fantastic! The problem is that womens window of opportunity is much much smaller than the fun-loving bachelor and the likelihood they will regret being childless is greater.

amazing post with a ton of truth. i think the process of finding out your own true value and having realistic expectations is a form of maturity. to be quite blunt, too many women are just too immature.

@paige
“I think another factor that I didn’t’ see mentioned is how pleasant independence is. ”

You didn’t see it mentioned because it’s not really relevant to the current conversation. I don’t think you can seriously argue that women in question are single because they are “guarding their independence.”

“Why can’t you argue that? It seems just as likely as the idea that they are over-valuing their mate-value. ”

Because they simply seem to be not attracted to men that are available to them. Even in an alternate (non-Christian) world where they could take an occasional tumble in the hay with them while keeping their independence, they wouldn’t be interested. And many of them openly pine for the opportunity to “give up their independence”. They say they really want to be married. I’ll take them at their word on that.

@Kate
In hunter-gatherer societies usually exists some (fairly) limited polygyny, but you are right most “marriages” are monogamous. There even exist arranged marriages in some cases.
The problem is that history of human genus goes more than 2M years back and some traits from those times still exist. They used to be supressed by society but it is not the case now. We live in a “safe” world of plenty of everything and you do not suffer consequencies of your actions. And most people are simply unable to understand that complex civilization needs high maintenance and safety and plentitude is not the default state of affairs (in fact even primitive society needs maintenance).

I would say that the threshold for frustration and pleasure are important factors. The single life is often quite comfortable. Eventually the pleasures are taken for granted and a persons threshold for pleasure increases. It takes more and more to get a thrill. A woman need not be slutty to find her threshold for pleasure has increased. Travel, shopping, nice restaurants all provide the dopamine rush and all of them can exhaust it. Haley has made several posts that make her sound just a wee bit spoiled (i.e. her comments about Kohls). Likewise…not having to confront much frustration would make a persons tolerance for frustration much much smaller. I have 5 young kids…my tolerance for frustration is very high compared to my single friends who are very easily annoyed.

So a woman who is use to a rather comfortable life is going to have a harder time experiencing pleasure and an easier time experiencing frustration. This would make it more difficult to tolerate peoples quirks. Some of the single women I know freak out if a person blows their nose in public while I am just happy that they aren’t using my shirt to blow their nose as my children are prone to do.

“I did not get absolutely everything I looked for in my wife. I got most of it, though, and learned to live without what I didn’t get.”

I agree that you can’t alter what you find attractive. In some sense it doesn’t matter if you get “absolutely everything” you were looking for. What matters is to know absolutely everything that you need the relationship to provide, and get it. To quote the last line from Dalrock post: “Marriage is too important to play make believe with”. If you or the other person in the relationship fails to understand and admit what each of you NEED from the relationship, and merely makes believe it is there or that you don’t need it, the relationship is doomed to a very ugly end.

I suspect I am someone older than most of the commenters here. I choose to limit my relationships to those that have the prospect for either a permanent committed monogamous LTR or marriage (unlikely given marriage 2.0 but not impossible). Some might find my list to long, others to short, doesn’t really matter to me. The list is also unrelated to my SMV. It has been whittled down to the minimum that I REQUIRE for happiness. These are shared early in the process of getting to know a woman. I also make sure that I know what is on her list. Because one of my requirements, is that I bring to the relationship everything she NEEDS ( not wants or “nice to haves”; needs).

It has been a long road, but a woman and I have found each other. So far we seem to be everything the other needs (this includes the head over heals part which was at the top of both our lists). Because we live in the real world and have paid the price for “make believe”, we are taking our time. Perhaps it will work out., I know we both very much desire that it does.

This is not about settling, or “trimming back the list”. It is about understanding what should be on the list and waiting and looking until you find it. The huge disservice that has been done to women is not to teach them to understand the difference between needs and wants in relationships.

Likewise…not having to confront much frustration would make a persons tolerance for frustration much much smaller. I have 5 young kids…my tolerance for frustration is very high compared to my single friends who are very easily annoyed.

I think female economic independence does play a big role. I think back on some good men who pursued me in my early 20s. One in particular was a good-looking, stable, Christian man. I just found him rather boring. But if I had not had economic independence, if I’d lived in a time where I was already considered an Old Maid and my friends were already having kids, that guy might have attracted me a lot more than he did. As it was, I wanted to go on to grad school and find someone who would be my soulmate.

Julie: The ancestral environment didn’t have to be polygamous for women to share an “alpha”. Until relatively recently, people generally had a way of dying younger and women in particular often died in childbirth, leaving, say, thirtysomething guys of some proven substance in need of a wife.

Yes. It doesn’t create the hypergamic impulse, but it allows it to flourish much more.

“As it was, I wanted to go on to grad school and find someone who would be my soulmate.”

And? Is yours a success story that will fuel the hamsters of other women? Or a cautionary tale? Or something in between where you ended up finding a guy who probably wasn’t much, if any, better or different than the ones you rejected when you were younger but who appeared to be much better because you were getting older? :)

“Hypergamy simply means women’s base sexual nature is attracted to a higher status in relation to herself. In other words, if she does not “look up” to a man in some way, she will not be attracted to that man.”

I think it’s useful to cite one of Novaseeker’s older comments:

“Women experience attraction very differently to how men do — we’re attracted to many more women than women are to men. Women are just not attracted in a relationship/romantic/sexual way to the vast, vast majority of men they meet. So when they’re complaining about a lack of good men, they’re not talking about the vast numbers of men they find unattractive (so it doesn’t matter if they are “good” or not), but rather the experience they are having that the men to whom they *are* attracted are not behaving the way they want. In other words: they’re not talking about you, because you’re not on the romantic radar screen, like most men.

It’s becoming fashionable on the internet to bash men like you for failing to be the kind of man who is on the radar screen. The theory seems to be that you are not “manned up” or “alpha’d up” enough to attract women, period, which is bad for you and for them. I am skeptical of these theories, however, because the basis of hypergamy is that women will find a way to distinguish among men regardless of whether they are all manned up or not — it would just mean that another criterion would be used to separate the “better” men from the rest, even if all men were “alpha’d up”. Nevertheless, a season is underway in which men who are not “alpha’d up” are to be bashed left and right by men and women alike.”

When I go to friends houses who are single I can’t help but feel a momentary twinge of jealousy. They seem to have so much freedom to do as they please. Their homes are palaces of feminine beauty with as much lace and flowers as they want. Their closets are full of amazing shoes and dresses that I couldn’t afford in my wildest dreams…and even if I could I would feel guilty because I have kids to put in college. They go where they want when they want.

Reminds me of a novel from the 19th century: “Adam Bede”. You’re envious of Esther, who spent all her money on clothes and jewelry. Unfortunately, Esther got pumped and dumped. There is no moral here. Your statement reminded me of that novel, that’s all.

I think my tale ended well. The man I married is probably of a similar attractiveness to the man I mentioned above (stable but boring). I would say both are greater betas probably. However, my husband is much closer to a “soulmate” than that guy was–we really understand each other and have had an adventurous life. But I was cutting it close by holding out, and if I’d wanted a large family, I wouldn’t have had time. I also had a lot of maturing to do, and had a lot to learn about healthy relationships, being a child of divorce.

JulieI also had a lot of maturing to do, and had a lot to learn about healthy relationships, being a child of divorce.

This is a very important point. I do not have a link handy, but it is pretty well established that being a child from a divorced family is a risk factor for divorce. At least you had some role model to recall. I look at women who are never married that have children and there’s a whole lot of extra work in the future for someone staring back at me.

Question, if you wish to answer it: Julie, did you and your husband go through pre marital counseling, and if so did it help? Not to put you on the spot, but it seems to me that there would be a good opportunity for discussing expectations for marriage on the part of both people. Better to get some unspoken premises out early, so they can be dealt with. Just my opinion and nothing more, we know what that’s worth.

Dalrock:
The problem stems from our culture, which is steeped in feminist ideology. Women, at least in America, DO NOT feel love or attraction for men, because nothing in their education or upbringing prepares them for it. Most of them grew up without fathers, and no positive male role models other than the louts their moms were doing in front of them. The media and schools teach them that all men are pigs and that women are inherently superior; that men are unnecessary for anything but donating sperm and that divorce is ‘liberating’ and that they are entitled to ‘rights’ like abortion and child-support. They’re taught that they are victims of a patriarchial society and deserve better than men.
Now, it’s only common sense that women so educated will NEVER develop a positive attitude towards men, at least not normal men who want things like marriage and families. Let the bitches deal with their own issues; smart men are abandoning the US relationship scene in droves for more suitable relationship material elsewhere.

@EricThe problem stems from our culture, which is steeped in feminist ideology.

I tend to agree with this statement. However, just as we recently discussed on another post, what matters is what individuals should do given the reality on the ground; waiting for a rework of law or culture isn’t rational. For men it is to learn game and avoid women who would fake being in love to marry. For women it is to deflate her inflated ego, whether due to feminist ideology, carousel riding, etc. The reason why it occurred in the first place doesn’t change the fact that something is fundamentally broken and must be fixed. However understanding what it was that caused the problem may well assist in applying the cure.

I’m being serious. She isn’t repulsed by the men around her due to the hypergamy, she is repulsed be them because she isn’t mentally capable of being sexually attracted to any man. She’s a Christian and was told to get married but she just can’t be attracted to any of the men around her. I think Haley is using PUA theory to help rationalize her situation. She may have read Roissy state that most men are “beta” and that most women aren’t attracted to “beta”. Haley reads it and nods her head, confusing(or maybe on purpose) her homosexuality for female hypergamy.

“There’s a part of your soul that isn’t nourished in marriage, and it’s too big a part to live without,” Haag writes. “You’ve tried, but you fear that you’re in the wrong marriage, however wonderful your spouse may be.”

Read that last sentence carefully. No matter how wonderful your spouse may be. BTW, she is, in her words, speaking for women in their 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Nice.

That thought has occurred to me as well. But she does claim to be sexually attracted to some guys. In a more permissive situation, perhaps she would be primarily lesbian but with an occasional dalliance with an alpha who was willing to bang her.

Read that last sentence carefully. No matter how wonderful your spouse may be. BTW, she is, in her words, speaking for women in their 30′s, 40′s, and 50′s. Nice.

Yes, she had an article on CNN last week as well. Oh well. I’ve always thought that the generation from 30-50 (currently) is probably the hardest off for sex relations, really. Lots and lots of “being on different pages” and accompanying angst and outright anger and hate really.

I’m posting this on a couple of websites, so that people can be aware. Nothing dramatic, but more in the way of an explanation, as departures in this neck of the woods without explanation seem to create consternation.

I am departing from this corner of the internet. There are many reasons for this, and this is not a sudden decision by any means. Most of this was written a few weeks ago when I took my old blogs down, but I have been tinkering with it for a while, and, thankfully, it’s much shorter than my average comment length.

The main reason is that I disagree too much with too much of what others seem to agree upon, and it creates too much dissonance for me to be interested in participating actively. I have said what I have to say, and I think others know where I stand, and have benefited (or not) from this, and for me personally it is time to move on. This may sound harsh, but so much that now happens in this corner of the internet is quite irrelevant to real life, in many ways, and so many of the commentators are just shockingly removed from reality. At least the reality that I know and have always known.

I am not a traditionalist. I have found, through spending time with them, that I disagree with both their extreme form (Laura Woods), their intermediate form (Mark Richardson) and their mild form (Alte and her commenters). I don’t agree with the ideas, with the separation from reality, with much of the substance. It was intriguing at first, but ultimately it is a walk away from shared reality into a personal reality which I do not respect, which I think is unrealistic, and which is also deeply unmotivating.

I am also not a men’s rights activist. I don’t think this is sensible. Other than marginal improvements, like Glenn Sacks and his group are achieving (and are more than worthy of support), this is never going to be anything approaching a movement. Men don’t work that way, and it’s a wrong-headed way of approaching things.

As I have said many times, I am agnostic on marriage, really. If a man wants to get married, knowing the risks, that’s his decision. I think enough men have spoken about that by now that it’s already out there as a popular enough meme as far as I can tell on mainstream websites. If not, then that’s also their decision. The endless discussions ad nauseam about marriage and finding mates are tiresome, repetitive and frankly not terribly interesting or influential after a time. It’s great that others are willing to pursue this, but marriage as an end in itself is not something I am willing to devote much energy towards in this culture, to be honest.

I have participated for few years in this space of the internet, but all good things come to an end. I think this is an insight that many of us who have participated for a bit longer have had. There is a time for everything under the sun, and at this time, it is time for me to retreat from this space and devote my time to other things that are more productive for me at this time. I wish you all well, wherever your endgame may be.

Yes, we did premarital counseling. It mostly confirmed that we were a good match. I think what has helped me is that I married a mature man from an intact, very functional, family. He is much better at dealing with my various neuroses/flaws than other men I’ve dated in the past. My husband and I are a lot alike in personality/values/vision. We built our relationship in a healthy way, and have a strong friendship undergirding our love. I am extremely motivated to avoid divorce myself–in my case, being a child of divorce is a strong antidote to any idealization I might have of the state.

krakonos: “We live in a “safe” world of plenty of everything and you do not suffer consequencies of your actions. And most people are simply unable to understand that complex civilization needs high maintenance and safety and plentitude is not the default state of affairs (in fact even primitive society needs maintenance).”

This. I think the current problems (rise of feminism, over consumtion, exaggerated expectations, non-accountability) are linked to the safety we can afford mostly due to cheap energy.

“I am not a traditionalist. I have found, through spending time with them, that I disagree with both their extreme form (Laura Woods), their intermediate form (Mark Richardson) and their mild form (Alte and her commenters). I don’t agree with the ideas, with the separation from reality, with much of the substance.”

I think it’s time to acknowledge that traditionalists are useless, hopeless suckers, plain and simple.

What exactly is wrong with traditionalists? For example Alte is a married woman with children in a stable relationship. What is wrong with that? People looking for a one-shot solution to society’s problems are neglecting the fact that choices are made on an individual basis. Do you guys have a better model for the family unit? Or perhaps you think the future is “game”, and men will spend all their free time and money competing with each other to be the most obvious “alpha” around. Not that that would last long. If you disagree with traditionalism do you have another solution? Defeatism is useless to everyone.

If you disagree with traditionalism do you have another solution?
Artificial wombs and sexbots, my friend. With the way technology is advancing (read The Misandry Bubble by TFH), we won’t have to deal with the problems caused by women ever again.

Lavazza said:
[krakonos: “We live in a ‘safe’ world of plenty of everything and you do not suffer consequencies of your actions. And most people are simply unable to understand that complex civilization needs high maintenance and safety and plentitude is not the default state of affairs (in fact even primitive society needs maintenance).”]

“This. I think the current problems (rise of feminism, over consumtion, exaggerated expectations, non-accountability) are linked to the safety we can afford mostly due to cheap energy.”

Women want rotten *sshole-type behavior and take it not having consequences for granted. In a word, spoiled. Letting folk experience a hard fall when reality intrudes usually makes them wise-up. Usually. (Although what it make take in this instance may be harmful for our society.)

1. Their female pedestalization was and is the greatest single force enabling Western feminism.
2. They spread the lie that Christian monogamy was designed to benefit men. (It wasn’t; in reality it mainly protected the interest of women in social stability and wealth creation at the expense of men.)
3. They spread bullshit about female sexuality while demonizing and criminalizing male sexuality.
4. They try to pressure young men into Marriage 2.0 while putting absolutely no pressure on women to do anything, anywhere, anytime.
5. They oppose male autonomy while doing nothing to limit female autonomy.

All this applies to the majority of WESTERN traditionalists.

“Do you guys have a better model for the family unit?”

There probably isn’t one. However, Western traditionalism will be a useful alternative only a) if it’s utterly stripped of the tendency to pedestalize women b) after the current feminist regime is utterly annihilated (if it happens).

@Höllenhund
This is rather recent problem. In the past christians did not see women as virtuous “princesses” and carriers of goodness. In medieval ages they even considered them as fallen beings (and they were right in many aspects).

krakonos said: “This is rather recent problem. In the past christians did not see women as virtuous “princesses” and carriers of goodness. In medieval ages they even considered them as fallen beings (and they were right in many aspects).”

Why our jihadist brethren favor burqahs and otherwise partyin’ like its 799 in regard to women.

@Brendan
I am saddened by your departure. You have always shone the light of reason on debate, and your particular style of open-minded and insightful communication has been something we’ve enjoyed and looked forward to over the years. I think I can speak for everyone in our corner of the blogosphere when I say that. You have had much to teach us, and have profoundly affected my own way of thinking.

Your sudden appearance on any comment thread can bring it to life, and also adds to the rationality of the discussion. I for one have always been delighted when you’ve made the effort to stop by and comment, whether on my blog or others’.

I wish you all the best. You cast a long shadow, and you will be missed.

Bredan – “I am departing from this corner of the internet. There are many reasons for this, and this is not a sudden decision by any means. Most of this was written a few weeks ago when I took my old blogs down”

I can understand your reasoning, yet, it’s still a sad day to see you go. As Susan has already noted, your’s have consistently been some of the most deeply insightful, yet level-head and rational comments that have been made. Hearing that you took down your old blogs (both Blogger and WordPress editions, it seems), I’m sure glad that I had the foresight to have saved personal copies of your excellent work [which i will, when ever I use it, continue to recognize as your “intellectual property”, and will give proper attribution].

People change. Not only do we go through various social phases (adulthood, children, jobs, retirement, etc.) but we also change in appearance, health, and hormonally. Once the “old” system of lifetime marriage was lost it opened up a pandora’s box of issues that are now coming out. The old social order / marriage contract put pressure on couples to hang in when each partner went through a rough patch whether that was job loss, injury or health issues, aging, you name it. Without those social barriers relationships have become a race to the bottom where the loser is the one who over committed or invested more in the relationship than the other.

If a woman is unable to experience love and attraction within her own “league”, then the most likely problem is she is greatly overestimating her own attractiveness. It isn’t that most men aren’t good enough, it is that she sees herself as above the vast majority of men.

A major source of this overvaluation of herself is of course that a goodly number of alpha men have wanted to and have had sex with her. Generally only fling or casual sex, and often as part of his rotation, but many girls kid themselves about this and about how x and y almost committed, etc.

@Doug1How many women remain “head over heels” in love with their husband 10 years into marriage though? .

I understand that the feeling may not be there during the entire marriage. But if it was never there to begin with, there is almost no chance it ever will be there. Plus, if (when) there is a rough patch, there aren’t better times to remember and look forward to having again.

It seems to me a sense of marital commitment is just as important, if there are to be kids

Absolutely. Attraction and “head over heels” love is necessary for marriage, but certainly not sufficient.

“Women whose ability to be attracted to normal men is malfunctioning can fix this by deflating their own egos.”

As numerous other commenters noted, most females are not capable of this form of self-examination, thus they are incapable of this self-checking action. Thus men must do it for them. Naturally, women get wet when we perform this essential service for them.

This is what negs are for. Men must practice popping negs, from mild to thermonuclear, especially men who choose to date in the urban SWPL dating scene that is by-and-large characterized by zeppelin-sized female egos.

A better option is simply to carefully screen women & don’t date those that require constant ego-checking & parrying fitness/shit tests. It’s fun for a while but ultimately, it gets old.

Brendan/nova –
I wish you a good journey, fellow traveler. Like others here I have always enjoyed your insights. I think you have outdone yourself on this one with a beautifully concise summation. Lest your message get lost amid the farewells, I think it is worth repeating – with some emphasis on the parts which I think are particularly significant.

The main reason is that I disagree too much with too much of what others seem to agree upon, and it creates too much dissonance for me to be interested in participating actively. I have said what I have to say, and I think others know where I stand, and have benefited (or not) from this, and for me personally it is time to move on. This may sound harsh, but so much that now happens in this corner of the internet is quite irrelevant to real life, in many ways, and so many of the commentators are just shockingly removed from reality. At least the reality that I know and have always known.

I am not a traditionalist. I have found, through spending time with them, that I disagree with both their extreme form (Laura Woods), their intermediate form (Mark Richardson) and their mild form (Alte and her commenters). I don’t agree with the ideas, with the separation from reality, with much of the substance. It was intriguing at first, but ultimately it is a walk away from shared reality into a personal reality which I do not respect, which I think is unrealistic, and which is also deeply unmotivating.

I am also not a men’s rights activist. I don’t think this is sensible. Other than marginal improvements, like Glenn Sacks and his group are achieving (and are more than worthy of support), this is never going to be anything approaching a movement. Men don’t work that way, and it’s a wrong-headed way of approaching things.

As I have said many times, I am agnostic on marriage, really. If a man wants to get married, knowing the risks, that’s his decision. I think enough men have spoken about that by now that it’s already out there as a popular enough meme as far as I can tell on mainstream websites. If not, then that’s also their decision. The endless discussions ad nauseam about marriage and finding mates are tiresome, repetitive and frankly not terribly interesting or influential after a time. It’s great that others are willing to pursue this, but marriage as an end in itself is not something I am willing to devote much energy towards in this culture, to be honest.

I have participated for few years in this space of the internet, but all good things come to an end. I think this is an insight that many of us who have participated for a bit longer have had. There is a time for everything under the sun, and at this time, it is time for me to retreat from this space and devote my time to other things that are more productive for me at this time. I wish you all well, wherever your endgame may be.

The Internet commentariat is characterized by noise and distortion as much as by anything else. Brendan has clearly stated his intent to embark on a course of action which is one of the ones most susceptible to that noise and distortion: he is simply going his own way – following the dictates of his own faith and conscience rather than the “leadership” of someone far more lost than he is.

@ Doug1
“How many women remain “head over heels” in love with their husband 10 years into marriage though? It seems to me a sense of marital commitment is just as important, if there are to be kids.”

Not to sound trite, but the women who gained an adult self awareness before marrying, who were head over heels in love and married men who were head over heels in love with them, probably still were 10 years later. “Marital commitment” is just as important, but it is not either or, BOTH are required.

If you think about people that you know in your life, you have anecdotal data to answer your question as to numbers. Of the couples that I know married ten or more years, with or without children, I’d peg the number of marriages “still head over heels” at around 10%-15%. Here is another tidbit. Among couples whose marriage I attended, I was nearly 100% perfect predicting how it would work out. Sometimes we make this complicated, but I believe that usually we know what is in store for our friends as we walk away from the church/reception. Either we are shaking our heads and giving odds on how long before it goes sour, or we have that lightness of step because we participated in a truly joyous event in life. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the time we leave shaking our heads.

I’ll add my name to the list of commenters who will miss Brendan’s well reasoned and insightful comments. Selfishly I wish I could make him stay, but I certainly respect his choice. Best of luck Brendan.

Honestly, I think the problem is that in the ancestral environment, almost every woman would have been with an alpha….in a polygamous situation. Our brains haven’t changed that much.

Actually though most hunter gather groups practice polygamy, the great majority of marriages among them are monogamous. Only the headman and maybe rising lead younger warrior of great daring do have a couple of wives, typically. In Middle Eastern Muslim countries only about 3-5% of married women are in polygamous marriages; the rest are in monogamous ones.

Instead I think a much larger percentage of men seemed some kind of alpha to ancestral girls. I don’t think all kinds of alpha are always a fixed small percentage. Yes girls want highest status, but there’s as a threshold effect, in guys they can be very sexually attracted to. That has to do for most with how masculine they are. Or at least that’s one strong way of getting there.

Yes, I’ll miss Brendan too. I always looked out for his comments, and always read them.

I hope he’ll sometimes make some appearances on blogs where the blogger and the most respected commenters perhaps aren’t that far away from his own thinking, such as here.

But I do get that after awhile, it does become rehash after rehash, with slightly different spins. It is also very discouraging considering the prospects of any real rollback of the more egregious feminist laws.

Brendan – hopefully we’ll cross paths in another corner of the net. I have enjoyed and been enriched by you contributions here.

Doug1 – I used to teach technical seminars. We had a mantra. Tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you just told them. Rehashing is what must happen to penetrate those that wish not to hear. It took us (roughly) four decades to get the legal system in this mess, it will take at least a couple to completely turn it around. But be of good cheer, no movement that makes it’s members unhappy can last for long. That is the legacy of feminism.

Honestly, I think the problem is that in the ancestral environment, almost every woman would have been with an alpha….in a polygamous situation. Our brains haven’t changed that much. They still direct women to look for alphas, and they direct men to look for many women. Hard to deal with in a culture that promotes monogamy.

If by “alpha” you mean the top half…. maybe….. but probably lower than that… then sure. “In the old days” “powerful alpha” didn’t have sophisticated weapons and police forces so that they could “own” the land and force all lesser men to pay tribute to them. Sure, sure, they could form a local gang. Armed trivially better than those they were oppressing and whose “reach” would only be a few dozen miles. Meaning men could leave, kill them then leave, or just kill them outright. Thus the capacity of a “fierce dominant alpha” for resource extraction from lesser males was rather low. Only the very top could afford three wives… some two…. and most only one. Yes, maybe a third of males… or less… didn’t have wives. Maybe a third.

I will also miss Brendan. I could have said most of what his post contained.

I’m surprised no one wrote this: Love does not mean the same thing to men and women.

Male love is personal, female love is impersonal. A good woman “Loves her man”. So, WHO is her man? He is the one who meets certain requirements, largely developed in her early teens. So when a man ceases to meet the expectations, he is no longer ‘her man’. It has nothing to do with who he is.

This has nothing to do with modern society. It’s always been this way. Marriages were primarily ARRANGED until modern history. It worked fine. The parents chose a man who they felt met the criteria, which made him suitable as ‘her man’ and everyone knew the groom would fall in love as soon as she started touching his special place.

It’s that simple. Men’s love is personal: It’s YOU, not your job, not your status. Women’s love is impersonal, and based on the traits she percieved you to have when you met her. Violate those expectations, or have her meet a more exciting and suitable mate, and watch the ‘love’ evaporate before your eyes.

I’ll say this is a ‘most’ and ‘some’ argument. Meaning Most Women, and Most Men. I know of men who’s hearts work like women, (PUA) and I’ve met women who’s hearts work like men. You can find those women, although not exclusively, at shelters for battered women. Other women are horrified that these women can’t ‘drop that zero and get herself a hero.’

So when I say, ‘women don’t love’, I mean ‘most women don’t love like men’.

However, I don’t think those exceptions mean very much. Saying ‘some women love’ is like saying ‘some men lactate’. It may be true, but sure as heck doesn’t teach you very much about most women and men.

Dalrock:
I agree with you that men shouldn’t wait for re-workings of laws, social conditions, &c. However, I think that the mistake men are making is assuming that women brought up in our culture can be part of the solution at all. By and large, American women ARE the problem. I don’t see ANY reason why men should learn game, or expend any amount of effort on them. Why shouldn’t men invest their emotional capital in women from cultures where men aren’t hated in the first place?
I agree that building society from the ground up would be a slow process, but, as things stand now, American men have no material to build with. It’s better to ‘import’ better stuff and start from there, one family at a time.

[D: I’ve seen the importing a foreign wife experiment go horribly awry for several men. This is confirmed in the comments on a recent post over at In Mala Fide. There is nothing wrong with marrying a foreign woman, but I wouldn’t assume she won’t change when brought to the west and she finds out the legal deck is stacked in her favor.]

Oak:
You’re right about how men and women love differently; except that men love and women do not. It really doesn’t have to do so much with status, since women seem to prefer bums and weaklings to anyone successful.
What women seek in relationships, in full accordance with their feminist upbrings, is to dominate men. No good could possibly come out of such an arrangement for either men or children. Also, in accordance with their upbringing, it is about getting all that she imagines herself entitled to; no good will come to men here either since women operate purely from self-interested motives.

I gotta agree with Dalrock on this one. Honestly, I think I’d have a better chance of success marrying an American than a foreigner, were I to engage in that unnecessary risky behavior. I know some men swear this is the secret, but I’m not convinced. (Nor is my friend currently getting divorced from a foreign bride.)

What I’m saying (about love) dovetails into this concept of ‘gaming your wife’ that comes up often here. All I think they are saying is that in the process of fencing, teasing, riposting, and being confident, you are showing her she still has a quality man worth keeping. I don’t like acting in front of my partner, but really… I can see this working.

I can’t accept your statement that women don’t love, it’s too simple. They do. (By my definition, every good woman loves her man.) But men need to know WHY they are being loved, or they won’t know how to play the game.

My GF got tipsy one night and was telling me how much she loved me, “you’re the kind of man I deserve… you won’t get lazy… ” I forget the rest… it was really cute at the time, but later I found myself thinking “What a bizarre thing to say.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man say “She’s the type of woman I DESERVE.” Well, I have… but it was a PUA, and I don’t think it was love on his mind. When you really think about the language women use about relationships, and what it implies, suddenly divorce statistics and every bad relationship starts to make sense.

My other post above is consciously from the (indignant) Men’s Perspective. It’s not charitable. And not totally fair. Neither is yours. I think your statements have too many inherent value judgments to be useful for most men.

Another way to put it is: Women’s love is more practical. It is Life-Goal oriented, for good or ill. Woman are smarter about relationships: The Male Blogosphere is filled with intelligent, capable males, who were emotionally and legally out-maneuvered in a loving relationship with a woman.

Legal parity in Family Court is another matter whatsoever.

If men understand the structural emotional differences, they can do something about it. You can learn and adapt. If I’m correct, then this same emotional duality exists in every culture, however subdued through upbringing. It is a survival adaption. You know, there are actually minor structural changes between the brains of men and women; STRUCTURAL changes. I don’t it’s culture causing that. (Yes, I may be spuriously conflating love and brain imaging, whatever.)

My oft-posted message is that the best way to deal with the legal parity, is to refuse to participate. Only Husbands are responsible for other men’s children and carry a disproportionate financial burden when a relationship dissolves. Husbands are the one’s lambasted, vilified and parodied in the media. Refusing to be one will have the largest effect on society; Husband’s value rises, and society is forced to take a hard look at what’s broken.

Oak:
I’m certainly not arguing that foreign women are perfect or that relationships with them sometimes fail; or that it is a simple process. It certainly isn’t. But are American women worth it? That’s the issue nobody seems to want to address.
Suppose that game and these other theories actually do work. Are there any reasons why any man should employ them even if they do? As far as I’ve seen, American women deserve NOTHING from men. That’s where the value-judgements that you mentioned really come into play. They are not irrelevant at all; in fact, that’s the same scam American women have been playing on men for the last 5 decades. They argue that their own behavior, character, &c. are not really relevant; men should love, serve them, and submit to their abuses unconditionally without ANY repricrocity on their own part.
When you say that men need to know why they are being loved; I would suggest a more accurate way to express it is that men need to understand how they are being used. American women are far too narcissistic to feel love or affection for anybody other than themselves; and whatever relationships they seek with us is likely short-term and self-serving.
I do agree with Dalrock that the familial unit is the structural basis for civilized societies; but in our culture one gender has voluntarily seceeded from the arrangement. Men who want to move forward and fix things, as Dalrock suggests, can’t do it when half of society is actively working against it.

Do not marry anyone to live in the US. It is true that the divorce rate for imports is lower, but even that is too high. Marry them and keep them in their own country, preferably a male friendly country. I am in Mexico, and the cost of a mistake here is much lower.

The general trend on MRA type blogs is that women don’t change. If she is bad when you marry, thus will it always be. More than 20 years ago, I was in Mexico City at our house. My daughter and my niece, late teens; early 20’s; were talking about their plans. They both indicated they were going to travel and have careers, then marry around 30. I poked my nose in and asked to whom they would marry. They said, “Well, someone.”

I told them, that is not how it works. You can’t tell men to go away until you are ready, then at age 30, announce you are ready to marry, and expect a long line of men to pound on your door.

I also told them how marriage works. I asked them if they could take an apple and an orange and squeeze it in their hands until they became a pomegranate. They agreed they could not. I told them that is what marriage has to do to men and women. They are ‘squeezed’ until finally they become “as one.” But, just before the change comes, the pressure gets so high, well, that is when the dearies bail and walk away from the marriage.

In the 90’s, a group of social workers interviewed a number of married women. They asked them to rate their marriages, 1 to 5, with 1 being very unhappy, and 5 being very happy. They noted all who gave their marriages a 1 or 2, I think it was.

Five years later, they looked them up. Some of the unhappy women divorced, and were still unhappy. What a surprise, not!

Some stayed married, and most of them now rated their marriages as very happy.

Just as women are told women were historically subjugated and exploited, so are men told most marriages were historically miserable, and women do not change with age. Both things are generally untrue.

The problem is in those days women couldn’t walk with everything, so a lot of them worked past the bad point, and then had decent marriages. Today, 40% of them bail, even when with patience their marriage stands a reasonable chance of working past it. People do look at their marriages differently when they know they can walk with no reason given and profit financially.

I am not saying it will work the same today. Ease of divorce means most will not want to work past that stage.

My opinion is that while so many women seem to have a habit of constantly
measuring men with their superficial standards, there are also those women
who care about what is inside men’s hearts, those who can see beyond. That is
my naive belief. And when I show her how pure I am in my love for her,
will she not appreciate it? And if some woman cannot realize it and continues
to find a BETTER man, so to speak, why not dismiss her as one of those having empty brains
and forget her completely? Why is it so difficult?

Unfortunately, men are only capable of the kind of love that is animalistic attraction. If she fails to jump his bones, his “love” quickly becomes indifference and she is disposed of in favor of someone easier to utilize for sex, childbearing and domestic chores, and a lot of respectable men choose to admit it instead of plotting hypocritical, manipulative excuses. Basically, his only concern is to use a woman before she uses him. It’s perfectly understandable, but with a mindset like that you are in no position to accuse someone of being pragmatic or selfish.

Men simply ask for willful ignorance. A man wants a woman who doesn’t know any better, otherwise it’s impossible to keep her submissive, which was mentioned many times before in this thread, just phrased differently. She marries at a young age and gives her entire life up, thinking it’s the only way to be. She doesn’t work, study or go
out, because it would interfere with her man’s idea or selflessness and family commitment. He then dumps her after years of marriage and finds someone else, younger and dumber. Quite convenient for the guy, but the chick is fucked.
You consider women selfish, yet I can’t imagine anything more entitled and narcissistic than complaining about someone’s unwillingness to sacrifice themselves for you. Fact: you simply hate modern women for having options. If they had the life opportunities of 1920, then marriage would be a priority to them and they would bend over backwards just to avoid the stigma of being single. But you can always go to the third world where women can’t do anything with their lives, which is what a lot of men resort to. Two choices: wife or a whore. She will love you – anyone – because there is nothing left for her to do.

the foreign bride thing has its own lifespan, women will whore up to the extent the society around them allows/encourages it. Women from less contaminated parts of the world won’t ‘cure’ the west, they’ll just slob down to the level of the women whose attitudes we’re railing against. I’ve seen ti happen with ow amazing eastern european women ere when they first turned up in Ireland, and they didn’t even know how cool they were, but now they’re all ugly hardnosed golddiggers.

On topic: make a list of the fucked up things women do as described in the comments above. Then look up the definitions for super hardcore psychopath/sociopath in *DSM IV*. Then make yourself a pretty chilling Venn diagram.

So no, in my experience and based on the Venn just mentioned, most women are incapable of any of the thin wedge of characteristics that make humans not completely worthless and evil.

Continuing the sort of philosophical approach, you can also look up research on *entropy* as being foundational to all ethical systems, and again make a Venn between shit women seem programmed to do in terms of destroying systems and causing exponential chaos. Two Venns, they say a lot if anyone can be bothered to build them.

You seem to have a very negative opinion of women. It makes one wonder who you dated before you got married. Most women are very capable of selfless love to the point of codependency. They then get bruised, if not emotionally battered, and retreat into rationalism, which is very fine for achieving high grades in college but a terrible approach to choosing a life mate. Some women are abuse survivors and are afraid of sex and emotionally intimacy with men. The number of girls that are sexually abused by adult male relatives and friends of the family is staggering. I’ve seen figures higher than 50%, but even if it is 1 out of 3, that still disconnect a woman emotionally, spiritually, and sexually from being able to form a healthy bond with a man until she undergoes serious treatment. By the time she is healed, yes, she is in her 30s and 40s and realizes she chose to marry a good guy for all the wrong reasons, or the wrong guy for all the right socially proscribed reasons. But, if she has kids that she loves, and she usually does, yes, she will divorce him and want a settlement.

Men stop marrying women that seem uninterested in you physically, or that you know have serious untreated childhood abuse experiences and thinking it’s going to be happily ever after.
Stop chasing women who are not interested. It usually means that she is not interested and/or attracted. Yes, she may fall in love with your wonderful personality down the road, but you will never have her passion, which men seem to want in marriage.

Women are driven, genetically, to mate with men that have “good” genes. It is true that the “losers” that I dated when I was younger had extraordinary gifts of looks, creativity-talent, intelligence and charm. They all had at least 3-4 exceptional gifts. I think my body was selecting gifts that would breed true in our children, because they were always gifts I shared. When that doesn’t work, the dependable guy looks amazing. Finally an adult that you can talk to and build a life with, a friend that you can trust. Someone who values commitment and stability. You choose a friend, forgetting that when marriage gets hard, sometimes the physical part of the relationship is the glue that keeps you connected. Your family, and your friends, even your co-workers and neighbors, start pressuring you to marry him. They start making comments about your ticking clock. And, it’s not just the women. The more close relationships that a woman has, the more pressure is put on her to settle on this guy. You can’t imagine life without this person.

And you are right, by the time a woman figures out that it’s about true friendship and true passion, trust and lust, an open mind, a hungry libido, a loving heart and a tender soul, a woman usually is pretty close to the end of her fertile years. It takes that long to deprogram yourself.

You are a brilliant writer with incredible insights Dalrock. You’ve hit everything spot on in this post. And in the end, what you’ve said here is the most important thing that matters: “Both men and women have a moral obligation to do everything in their power to give their future kids the best shot possible of growing up in an in tact, functional home.”

Interesting comment. I suspect that what you’re doing here is describing your life which doesn’t line up entirely with the trajectories of most women.

I wouldn’t agree that most women are capable of very selfless love to the point of codependency. Most women are self-interested, and aren’t going to sacrifice themselves for anyone, much less a man. Respectfully, I don’t think what you describe as selfless love in a young woman is love in this SMP. It’s mostly animal lust, I think — lust for animal sex with hot alpha men. Most of the reason a woman is unable to bond with a man is due to her having a number of sex partners before settling down with one man.

Re your suggestion that men stop chasing women who don’t seem interested in them physically: I think you have this backwards. Men are going to pursue women they find physically attractive. That is never going to change. Most of this takes care of itself, as most women who aren’t physically attracted to a pursuing man bring a swift end to the pursuit through firm rejections, often nuclear rejections.

You allude to the rest of the problem in your comment. Many times a slut who is around 30, with a string of failed relationships, a history of abuse, casual sex and ONSs, decides she wants to get married. She still has a little of her attractiveness left. She sets her sights on Mr. Dependable. She goes all in with attention and sexual favors. This woman wouldn’t have given him the time of day 4 or 5 years before. But now that The Wall is in plain sight, she needs a husband and no prospects are on the horizon, she needs to get this guy and get him fast. She lays it on thick.

He is pleasantly surprised and overjoyed to get sexual attention from an attractive woman who he thinks is out of his league. He is smitten. In a year or so she starts pressuring him to get married, which they do the next year. Then she decides she is not haaaaappy, or isn’t physically attracted to him, and leaves him. He is blindsided, and finds himself divorced and having to pay alimony and child support for the sin of being a man she finds unattractive. She ruined his life by feigning attraction just to get a husband and a father (figure) for her kids.

It’s good to hear more and more women like you finally owning up to your mistakes. It would have been better if women didn’t have to learn it the hard way. It would have been better had such women listened to their parents, or that they had told of the folly of trying to make a husband out of a bad boy or a thug.

comments like your fascinate me, because the demonstrate the apex fallacy time and time again. This is not the experience of men in general or the vast majority of men. Only the apex men at the very top of the alpha male food chain live as you describe.

The trajectory of the typical man’s romantic and sex life looks more like this:

In high school he gets almost no attention from women. He takes the ugly girl to the prom and maybe gets a handjob or two from the local bottomfeeder sluts. In college he starts getting a little more attention, but not much. He has a relationship or two with a few ONSs interspersed for good measure. He gets out of college and starts working. He dates a few women. He meets one who he likes well enough. She typically has had a few boyfriends and an ONS or two; she has an N of 5. She has decided she NEEDS to get married and, after a year or so of dating and an active sex life, pressures him for a ring. She tells him, in effect, “we are either getting married or I’m breaking up with you.” He relents, and the date is set.

After the wedding, the sex drops off precipitously. Seven years into the marriage she balloons up after giving birth to her 2 kids and now weighs 60 pounds more than she did when they met. He is stressed out all the time from working constantly. She is stressed out and tired all the time. Sex is nonexistent. She finds herself attracted to the principal at the school where she works; they have a brief affair which her husband never discovers. She then divorces him because she is “unhaaaappy” and takes half the marital assets. She gets alimony and child support. He lives in a crummy studio apartment and takes on the status of wage slave.

Or, if they remain together, everyone is miserable. He has to deal with her sexual issues and baggage. He gets no sex, little sex or very unsatisfying sex, which increases his frustration year by year. She remains unhaaappy, and makes everyone around her miserable.

Calling women “sluts” is immature and counter-productive to real communication. Obviously, you are a man Spurned and are seething with anger towards women, for which I recommend therapy, not blogging. I am not describing my life, fortunately, but the lives of many women who I personally know. Women are not responsible for setting up the rules governing marriage all over the planet, and all societies function this way. No consideration is given to whether or not the woman is attracted to her husband. This is a patriarchal world where many women have to marry whom they are told to by their parents. Even though we have choice in America, you have no idea on the amount of pressure put on young women to marry good men, whether they are attracted or not. If a man pursues a women for a length of time that seems repulsed by him, then he has a self-esteem issue. Yes, men pursue women who they think are attractive, but when she is blatantly repulsed by him physically, that is the signal to LEAVE HER ALONE. YOU DON’T KEEP COMING BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL SHE GIVES IN. If you can’t tell when someone is not into you sexually, or emotionally, again that is a therapeutic issue. Most men focus too much on their physical desire for women. “He is pleasantly surprised and overjoyed to get sexual attention from an attractive woman who he thinks is out of his league. He is smitten.” He is not smitten; he is feeding his own animal lust and allowing himself to be deceived because he wants this woman. In some of the situations I am describing, the women are honest with these men. They say “I love you but I am not in love with you”. They also are known to tell the man that they don’t feel that way about them, and yet these men persist. A lot of times these men marry disinterested women to have their versions of “trophy wives”. As you say, the man knew she was out of his league. It’s self deception and denial. Women get what they get for marrying where hey don’t desire. Men get what they get for marrying where desire is not returned.

“No consideration is given to whether or not the woman is attracted to her husband.”

Two things: (1) In this SMP, the man’s sexual attractiveness is the PRIME consideration for whether she has sex with that man. (2) if a woman marries a man to whom she is not physically attracted, that is her fault, not his. This is the United States. There are no forced marriages. Arranged marriages are a thing of the past except in the most cloistered communities.

“Even though we have choice in America, you have no idea on the amount of pressure put on young women to marry good men, whether they are attracted or not.”

Perhaps there is such pressure. Such women have the right to reject that pressure and stand up under it, and refuse to marry men they aren’t in love with or don’t want to marry. If she doesn’t want to marry him, she has the absolute right to say no. Your argument is silly and assumes women have no agency, no free will, and simply buckle under to any and all pressure. Perhaps that was true 60 years ago; but it’s not in today’s society of StrongIndependent Women (TM).

“If a man pursues a women for a length of time that seems repulsed by him, then he has a self-esteem issue. Yes, men pursue women who they think are attractive, but when she is blatantly repulsed by him physically, that is the signal to LEAVE HER ALONE. YOU DON’T KEEP COMING BACK AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL SHE GIVES IN.”

If a woman can’t reject a man kindly, responsibly, and in a ladylike manner, then she is not worthy of being pursued. If she acts “blatantly repulsed by him physically”, then she is not worthy of being pursued. I categorically reject your attempts to foist all the responsibility for pursuit and breaking off pursuit on the man. It ignores her agency and free will. Use that agency and free will, If you only knew– feminism fought hard for it.

“If you can’t tell when someone is not into you sexually, or emotionally, again that is a therapeutic issue.”

If you can’t reject a man kindly and responsibly, that is a character issue.

“Most men focus too much on their physical desire for women.”

Looks and youth are far and away the attractors for men. Deal with it. It’s never, ever going to change. Not ever.

“Calling women “sluts” is immature and counter-productive to real communication.”

I don’t call women “sluts”. I call sluts “sluts”. Note the context:

“Many times a slut who is around 30, with a string of failed relationships, a history of abuse, casual sex and ONSs, decides she wants to get married. She still has a little of her attractiveness left.”

This woman is 30. She cannot or will not sustain a relationships. She has had a number of ONSs. She is sexually incontinent and gives it up to any Tom, Dick and Harry who tingles her. She is a slut.

But if I had said:

“Many times a woman who is around 30, with a couple of boyfriends in college and no relationships, with a partner count of two, decides she wants to get married.”

This woman is sexually continent. She has not slept with every man who tingled her. She is a woman. She is not a slut.

“He is not smitten; he is feeding his own animal lust and allowing himself to be deceived because he wants this woman.”

She does not love him. She marries him because she is 30, she has no other options, and she allows herself to be deceived because she wants the status of being married and the knowledge that someone accepts her and she can actually not f**k something up.

“In some of the situations I am describing, the women are honest with these men. They say “I love you but I am not in love with you”. They also are known to tell the man that they don’t feel that way about them, and yet these men persist.”

In some situations I know of, the men marry women they genuinely love and who they thought loved them. It isn’t until 7, 8, 10, 15 years into the marriage that she finally comes clean and says “I love you but I’m not in love with you”. Whose fault is that? Is it the man’s fault for taking her at her word? Or is it the woman’s fault for lying, manipulating, committing fraud, and generally being dishonest?

The man stays with her because he knows if he divorces her it will ruin his children’s lives forever, and he will lose half or more of everything he’s worked for, and he will be financially ruined forever. Again: Whose fault is that? The man, for actually believing the words she said; or the woman, for telling the lies?

” A lot of times these men marry disinterested women to have their versions of “trophy wives”. As you say, the man knew she was out of his league. It’s self deception and denial. Women get what they get for marrying where hey don’t desire.”

A lot of times these women marry men just for the status, the money, and so they can be SAHMs eating bon bons and watching Oprah. Again: who’s at fault? The man, for marrying a woman who said she loved him, or the woman, for lying, manipulating, deceiving and committing fraud?

“In some of the situations I am describing, the women are honest with these men. They say “I love you but I am not in love with you”. They also are known to tell the man that they don’t feel that way about them, and yet these men persist.”

If you only, I’m still geeking out that a sentient being thinks this absolves women of agency.

We are not talking about shrinking violets. We’re not talking about frail little things that get the vapors at the first sign of conflict. We’re not talking about people cowering in corners, rocking back and forth in straitjackets.

We’re talking about 21st century strong, independent women. We’re talking about women who have their own cars, their own money and their own jobs, with degrees, and friends, and pets, and fabullous lives.

Are you seriously coming onto this site and telling us that women can’t say NO?

Are you seriously coming in here and telling us that these women are forced into marrying men they don’t love because they don’t want the men, or their parents, or their families, to “feel bad”?

Are you seriously coming in here and telling us that these women are so devoid of character and steadfastness that they cannot turn down a man kindly and respectfully? Are you seriously coming in here and saying these women can’t stand up for themselves enough to say “I don’t want to get married to you” or “I don’t want to date you anymore”?

I don’t believe any of this for one minute. Not one. Single. Solitary. Second. Not in 21st century America. Not in a land so permeated with feminism that women can do anything they want, with anyone they want, anytime, any place, anywhere.

Deti, please stop feeding the hamster! If only you really knew how many times she’s been down that road before. Don’t you understand? She has to have found herself before she can settle down. Finding herself with a couple rockstars and badboys in the youthful past just happens to be the road she needed to travel down. Don’t begrudge her this, you pervert you… just who do you think you are?!

On second thought, this might be entertaining, please continue…

“If only you knew,” please tell us the ways of the women folk, I’m all too interested to hear your story. Deadly serious, tell us about your past, your present and your search for Mr Right…now. I’m literally seething with anticipation. Spurning for a burning on how women really pick the men they want to fuck and the men they are willing to marry.

Oh, and how’s the deprogramming going? How many badboys do you still require?

“If you only knew” will be glad to know that she will never, ever have to get married. No one will ever, ever be able to force her into getting married. Men being nice are so terribly manipulative and deceitful, you know. Their offering to take care of her and any children she has — it’s a dastardly, diabolical scheme, and sites like Dalrock’s aim to put a stop to it. These awful, terrible men are saying horrible, nasty things like “I love you” and “I want to marry you” and “let’s have kids”. This abuse has GOT to stop. It’s a public health issue. It’s a tragedy of epic proportions. These men are doing things like working their asses off to make enough money to care for their wives and children. They are also doing things like coming home at night and helping with chores and helping kids with housework. Then they [gasp] FIX THINGS like leaky faucets and appliances going on the fritz.

But people like “If you only knew” think this is horrible, manipulative, and fraudulent. Don’t worry, “If you only”. We’re here to tell you you don’t ever, ever have to tolerate it. No, we’re here to save you from this awful fate.

She has the absolute right to have sex with any men she wants, any time she wants, anywhere.

She has the absolute right to work.

She has the absolute right to marry.

She has the absolute right to get a divorce anytime she wants, and take half her hapless ex husband’s money indefinitely.

She has the absolute right to tell any man she wants, even her husband, that she doesn’t want to have sex, and there’s nothing her husband can do about it.

She has the absolute right to have sex with any men she wants, any time she wants, anywhere.
Really?!? OK, Deti, let’s go.
Oh wait. Men also have the absolute right to tell any woman he wants, even his wife, that he doesn’t want to have sex, and there’s nothing his wife can do about it.

But the commenter you are responding to is on to something. No, of course, women in the United States are not generally forced to get married, but the fact is that this site does advocate telling women, “ZOMG, your sell-by date is fast approaching, get married before your eggs expiiiiiiiire!!!!!” If women adopt that mind-set, it does lead to getting married just for the sake of getting married, which means getting married for love is less likely.

No they don’t. She can divorce him on account of emotional abuse, neglect or even abandonment. Nice little thing the ‘no fault’ divorce, she doesn’t even need to prove it, she can merely claim and then serve divorce papers on him citing ‘irreconcilable differences’ and take 50% of his estate and claim maintenance. Hell, she could even have an affair and then do the same thing, blame her husband for the affair and still get her cash and prizes.

You’re smoking some heavy shit there DH.

And yes, women do have a fertility window to think of. That’s just being truthful, it’s in no way forcing them to do anything. Certainly glad you didn’t have children.

And this site does nothing of the sort. Show us where it says anything close to, “Get married, your window is closing!”. If anything, this site tells women to avoid marriage unless they are truly head over heals in love. It also advises them on the best action to take to get the best man at the right age so that the union truly lasts. Then again, you women don’t like to hear the truth of it all. Only the hamster must prevail…

FH,
OK, hmmmm, but I keep hearing women getting dumped on here because they didn’t marry a perfectly decent guy who asked them at 23. And I hear women getting dumped on because they had “frivolous” reasons for turning a guy down.

Oh, and so you think, men are required to put out against their will because we women have them by the short and curlies since we can walk out any time and take half of “the man’s” money? Ummm, ok. But a husband can walk out on a wife anytime and take half of the marital estate too. The fact is that everyone’s standard of living decreases after a divorce.

Also, it’s not half of the man’s money; it’s half of the couple’s money. If he doesn’t feel that’s fair, he should select for someone who contributes equally to the marital estate in terms of income owed.

DH, I am perfectly willing to accept there are times when a spouse cannot have sex. You seem to be confusing your idea of marriage to the Christian ideal of marriage in which the spouses own the right to each other. For me this is a non-issue, it’s only an issue for someone who despises their spouse and wishes ill on them. Medical issues, times of forgoing of sex withstanding of course.

Also, it’s not half of the man’s money; it’s half of the couple’s money. If he doesn’t feel that’s fair, he should select for someone who contributes equally to the marital estate in terms of income owed.

This only really works if one provides protection in the form of a ‘fault divorce’ system for the innocent party. It requires proof of infidelity or neglect or abandonment or abuse. A ‘no fault’ divorce system takes that away and thus makes divorce easier and a reason men have to really discern the women in their life before proposing. To go through their pasts with a fine tooth comb. Every nook and cranny. Which is as ludicrous as it sounds, which is why the best advise to men grappling with the appalling lack of female options should probably learn to live without the thought of marriage.

Well done feminists, marriage is in its death throes. Give yourselves a mighty pat on the back, you’ve earned it.

FH,
Yes, marriage is a risk under a no fault system, but it is a risk under a fault system too. Under a fault system, you can find yourself shackled to someone who is abusing you or cheating on you, both things that can be difficult or impossible to prove. Bringing back fault divorce is not going to make marriage more appealing. It’s like any kind of partnership. You partner for mutual benefit but when the partnership dissolves, you divide the assets.

Half the time you don’t argue, you just contradict. Actually you don’t contradict… you point to one or two counter examples (from your personal experience or otherwise) as if this refutes generalizations that more or less fit with statistical data. When this fails to stall the discussion… you tend to move on to moral equivalency in order to neutralize the points being made. I would simply ignore you as being a troll… but these are the exact same reflex actions that occur whenever anything remotely like this is being discussed elsewhere.

Your last comment here is more of the same. “Wow… there are risks under each of two approaches to divorce law. Oh well… I guess that’s the end of the discussion… after all… there’s no way to actually *choose* between the two. Thanks to my ability to refute all generalizations with anecdotal examples, I really can’t imagine anything else to say here.” This is the “math is hard, let’s commit adultery” reaction.

At any rate, we would argue that no-fault divorce has been bad for both men and women. It is also an extremely bad deal for children. I guess if everyone were well-bred, tolerant, open minded, college educated and nice… we wouldn’t have to set up laws to serve most of the people most of the time. Ironically, those tolerant-liberal-educated people tend to live more like conservative Christians when it comes to marriage and children because in the end, they know what actually works in the real world. Their hypocrisy lies in their constant preaching the opposite for all the run of the mill low-class types.

That’s really quite evil when you think about it. Preaching evil in order to be accepted by the de facto state religion… laying a snare for the simple… and then quietly choosing the opposite for yourself. How craven….

I’m going to play devil’s advocate real quick, but one advantage I can see of no-fault divorce is that if a woman wants out she will do whatever she can to get out. If a fault divorce is the only option she will likely resort to ‘spousal rape’ or falsified abuse charges. At least with no-fault divorce she can just ditch and run with the money instead of the husband being thrown to the wolves in our criminal (in)justice system as well. If we were to reinstate no-fault divorce as the only method this would only work with strengthened perjury charges. Personally, I believe that perjury should be a capital offense as I believe that only hanging can appropriately punish an unjust loss of liberty.

Deti: Give it a rest already with the drama. My goodness. I don’t even understand where your last tirade is coming from. As I said before, some woman must have wronged you badly, but you have to stop projecting your bad experience onto the over three billion other females on the planet. Have you ever prayed on this issue you have with women? I hope that you are happily married now because your rage will scare off the good ones.

I would not tell you a blessed thing. Wow. You guys on this website are some of the angriest men ever. The real question is what happened to you! because I am not angry, and you clearly are. You also sound very young to be talking about bad boys. What adult woman wants a bad boy, or any boy at all good, bad, or indifferent? A good man is worth a thousand bad boys. Good men are adult responsible men. Bad boys are juvenile delinquents in adult male bodies. They make lousy husbands and worse fathers. Also, finding yourself should not take all your life.

No, Deti, I am not saying that women can’t say “no”. I am saying that there is something wrong with a man who keeps pursuing a woman who has turned him down numerous times in the hopes that one day she will say “yes”. He is a masochist. Who wants to be rejected that many times? Why would you keep going back? It’s psychologically self destructive. Why not pursue someone who reciprocates his interest. What childhood issue is he reenacting, rejection by a cold and unloving mother? There is also something wrong with the woman who says yes to any man she doesn’t want. Do none of you ever consider that the women who hurt you so much are SICK, and in need of psychological treatment, and not representative of healthy women in any way. The world is over crowded with humans. Do you really believe that a significant number of them are not CRAZY? For real? Both Men and Women need to be more discriminating in their choices. Ye, you should be attracted to your mate, but who they are really matters. It has to be more than that.

Yes. Let’s bash the woman for typing too fast and not spell-checking before she hits enter. Wow. It seems like all the men on this website have it out for me. I have never had such a negative response. You are some angry, angry, angry men.

Yes. It is his fault If (and I do mean IF) he ignored the little voice inside that told him that she doesn’t really love him or want him. That wasn’t his low self-esteem, it was intuition and insight. Unfortunately, humans are emotionally deceptive. Women get told they are loved all the time by guys that want to use them. Unfortunately, men need to be taught the same discriminating skills. Yes, there are men who will use women for sex, and Money. Yes, there are women who will use men for money and social prominence. No, Virginia, there isn’t a Santa Claus. It hurts like hell, but there it is, and no amount of blogging will change the fact that we All, men and women, have to be careful, and that some people are just better liars than we are at discerning the truth. If we have really done All that we can, and still get “tricked”, the likelihood is that the person that tricked you is either a pathological liar, or some type of semi-sociopath — of which there are many.

The hamster is strong with this one. Shaming, NAWALT, you need to man up, men should be able to just know like us perfect women do, judging is for me and not for thee… I am impressed!

Alas, like all hamster-empowered women, ‘If you only knew’ sees no point in bringing proof and logic into her arguments. Obviously we must believe your perfect words, so why bother with truth? Silly concepts like truth, justice and equality must fall before the wrath of the hamster.

I do thank you for the entertainment, but if you actually want to discuss instead of pontificate, logic and proof would be handy.

farm boy, I think she’s just here to rile up some feathers. Don’t feed the hamster and don’t fan the flame. When shaming language is used, especially the ‘angry, angry, angry’ in quick succession, it’s best to let her converse with herself as there is nothing you can do that would persuade her otherwise.

On another note I do find her reasoning rather similar to most women. Men must read their minds, we must discern their motives without them telling us. We must ‘listen’ to the little voice in our heads and that when they say they love you, what they really mean is that they don’t… Yes means no, unless it means yes, but you must hear the voice inside your head to discern the real answer.

” While it is true that women generally do find the highest status men the most attractive, it doesn’t mean they can’t find men of their basic “marriage market value” attractive. I’m not arguing that those women who tell us they can’t fall in love with or be attracted to men in their own league aren’t telling the truth; I’m saying this isn’t the natural state of things. ”

Actually, it is.

The fact that females are the (reproductively) rate-limiting sex, has always manifested in their higher selectivity(DNA analysis shows that only 40% of an ancestral male population was
reproductively successful, compared with some 80% of females).

This dynamic changed, briefly, when ascendant populations became organized around efficient systems of social monogamy, which encouraged male co-operation, and compelled women to ‘settle’ and pair-off with their nearest male equivalents.

Thus, mutual sexual attraction, traditionally, has never been a requirement for long-terms relationships.

Rather, sexual chemistry was(and in many cultures still is) a frequent trade-off that women were expected to make, in securing a long term mate – the reason being, that women are so selective in terms of sexual chemistry, as to render an insoluble scarcity of males to satisfy this requirement under assumptions of a monogamous mating system.

Female sexual liberation(where they were no longer economically/politically dependent on their mates) changed all that, and engendered in effected female populations a kind of romantic idealism, that, for many, will be impossible to realize.

And it is these kinds of unrealistic expectations that form the basis for much of the prevailing conflict between the sexes in the Western world.

But, what most in the manosphere fail to grasp, is that being a high-status male in the current mating market(post female sexual liberation) says less about independent wealth/status indicators, than about indications in physical attractiveness.

True, all things being equal, women will favor wealthy/high status males – but only in very exceptional cases(often involving very high profile individuals in the public eye, tending to skew perceptions of normal) will a female make significant concessions in terms of the physical attractiveness of her mate(unless she is not, herself, attractive enough to warrant the attentions of physically attractive males).

Not so surprising, when one considers that a selection bias for resourceful males should exist in some proportion to the advantages they pose to the survival of her offspring.

Thus, if the advantages are small(given a prosperous welfare state, which marginalizes these advtantages), then there will be minimal selection bias(which explains a large population of women who are increasingly disinterested by the lone prospect of a resourceful mate).

Consider: “A new study of romantic attraction by two Northwestern psychologists suggests that men and women are equally inspired by physical attraction.”

True, mass-communication media has skewed perceptions of male normal, through idealized depictions of physically attractive males – but there is no undoing the damage from a nurtured pathology of female entitlement.

“When addressing how men should respond to hypergamy, the obvious answer is to have them learn game to improve their attractiveness.”

The thing to remember about female psychology, is that ‘Alpha’, in terms of mating status, is conflated with physical attractivenes.

Thus, unless game can be used to refine a man’s physical deficits, it is unlikely to help improve his attractiveness if that is where the problem lies(which is likely to be the case – see above).

“So the solution is both obvious and extremely unpleasant. Women whose ability to be attracted to normal men is malfunctioning can fix this by deflating their own egos.”

But what incentive is there for them to do this?

Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits(observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits(observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate).

And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage(ie. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term)fantasy partner.

Since I’m from a conservative, Indian culture where arranged marriages are the norm, I always assumed that love would come after marriage provided both spouses were from the same cultural background, had some common interests, and were mutually dedicated to leading a good life together. The sparks and “chemistry” feeling that Westerners write so much about never struck me as a particularly important thing to look for in a potential husband since scientific studies prove that feeling only lasts between two to three years.

Aligning values in terms of politics, religious beliefs, child rearing, division of labor, gender roles, and interests are far more important than “chemistry” and sparks. It’s certainly nice to have chemistry and sparks but I don’t think it’s that important for women to desire their future husbands that much. If the woman is a virgin at the time of marriage, she’ll end up pair bonding to her husband once she gives her virginity to him on the wedding night because of oxytocin provided he’s nice to her and is gentle with her. For example, my Mom was passionately in “love” with a classmate at the all boy’s college adjacent to her all girl’s college. She couldn’t marry him because he wasn’t Indian and because he wasn’t headed to medical school, so she (wisely) married my Dad, who is Indian and who is now a practicing physician. Though my Dad loved my Mom more than she did at the start of their marriage, she now tells me that choosing a husband based on practical factors–will he be a good provider, will he be loyal and faithful, will he lead the family with honor, will he be a good father–was the single best decision she could’ve made. She tells me that she fell in love with his ability to provide for our family and his tender heart over time instead of all at once, citing that the chemistry she lamented at not feeling at the start of their marriage is more than compensated for with their discussions over chai every Sunday morning and the love they feel for each other.

Seeing the kind of happy arranged marriage they have makes me wonder why more Westerners don’t look for stable, happy marriages instead of fireworks and love.

“Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits(observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits(observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate).

And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage(ie. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term)fantasy partner.”

Or, there isn’t that pressure, as long as 1) the welfare state, 2) all the affirmative-action/make-work/paperwork/government/regulation-origin jobs that disproportionately employ women, and 3) the divorce industry collecting chilamony continue in existence. Not to mention, at-home paternity tests are ever cheaper and more popular. Good luck in the future getting a man to support you (let alone stick around) once he learns you’ve cuckolded him. (The .gov can pass all the laws it wants; going to happen less and less and less…)